Creationists are just liek Holocaust Deniers
Psycho Dave
holocuast deniers and Creationists, saying that I go too far, or that
the comparison is highly inappropriate. I disagree. Not only are my
views on the connection between creationism and Holocaust denial
appropriate, but I believe they are accurate and justified.
Holocaust denial and Creationism don't just share common tactics and
methodology in how they publicise and spread their message, They also
share Antisemitism. Many evangelicals who support creationism deny any
charges of antisemitism strongly, but there is a lot of documentary
evidence to support the idea that at least some Evangelicals who are
involved with the creationist movement, are, in fact, anti-semitic.
Before I get into that, let me restate what I have previously claimed
about the similarities between holocaust deniers and Creationists.
(1) Both use conspiracy theories to support their claims. Holocaust
Deniers frequently claim that "History is written by the victors", or
that "History is controlled by the establishment." When reading
Holocaust denial literature, they frequently claim that there is a
secret conspiracy of Jews who have influence over governments, and who
pressure people into accepting their "official version" of what
happened in World War 2 with respect to the Nazi Attrocities against
Jews. they claim that the establishment crushes all who go against
this official version of history.
Likewise, Creationist literature is full of the same conspiracy
claims. They claim that the scientific establishment crushes all
alternative viewpoints, and that evolution is promoted as the official
word by a politically powerful organized movement within the
establishment.
(2) Both say that it's important for children to be taught alternative
views (their views, in particular) in school, and decide the truth for
themselves. Of course, when it comes to other simlar topics in history
and science, both holocaust deniers and creationists have nothing to
say about presenting alternative views and letting kids decide for
themselves.
(3) Both use deceptive and fraudulent research to promote their
agendas. In the case of Holocaust deniers, They often misquote
research or blow it off entirely. IN "the Hoax of the 20th Century",
for example, Holocaust Denier Aurhur Butz simply casts aside all
testimonies of victims as "lies for publicity and personal gain", and
all admissions and confessions of former Nazis who participated in
attrocities as "coerced by the allies". In other words, despite the
fact that plenty of eyewitnesses corroborated thousands of specific
stories and facts, they all have to be ignored because the allied
victors in World War 2 invented the facts and made sure everyone told
the official version of events. David Irving, another Holocaust
revisionist and historian, despite ample documentation of Hitler's
speeches, minutes from staff meetings, and other material,
misrepresented all of it by stating that Hitler had no idea what his
generals were doing.
Creationists aren't just similar, They're worse! In case after case,
various scientific facts and articles cited in creationist
publications, where famous and respected scientists appear to be
making the case against evolution, the quotes are often doctored or
quote-mined out of context to say the exact opposite of what the
original author intended. Creatioists do not simply blow off research
and evidence, they actually attempt to redefine science terms and
facts, and even tell outright lies about the facts. The use of the
second law of thermodynamics is a perfect example of how they attempt
to redefine scientific laws to suit their needs. They claim that there
are no transitional fossils, which ignores the body of evidence that
scientists have collected concerning this. the Discovery Institute
claims that more and more respected scientists are coming over to the
creationist side, when the reality is that more and more Christian
diploma mills are giving fraudulent degrees to people who never were
practicing scientists in the first place, and who do not go on to work
as scientsts after they get their degrees.
(4) Both have people among them who are blantantly antisemitic.
Holocaust deniers are practically unquestionably antisemitic by and
large, as most of their appearances and support comes from the Neonazi
movement. Arthur Butz and David Irving, two of the most prominant
revisionists, speak almost exclusively in front of neonazi audiences.
With Creationism, few of the books, literature, and websites of
creationists show direct evidence of antisemitism, but rather, support
of their ideas often comes from individuals and groups in the
Evangelical community who are undoubtedly antisemitic or racist. For
example, Kent Hovind, a prolific Creationist and current Felon (for
tax evasion), sold neonazi and antisemitic literature on his website.
"The Fourth Reich of the rich" is one such book that he sold, wwhich
is a typial conspiracy theory book linking Bilderburgers, Illuminati,
and powerful Jews. He also wrote "I love the Jews. But The Protocols
of Zion [sic] was written to explain how to control the world, I mean,
it lays it all out. But it's really carefully done so that if it is
ever discovered the Jews take the blame for it." (the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion is a classic Antisemitic book that purports to show how
the Jews control the world, but it was uncovered as a hoax many
times).
Racism and Antisemitism are the dark underbelly of the Evangelical
movement, and one which evangelicals guard carefully, but
occaisionally, they let it slip out of their mouth or into their
literature. People like Pat Robertson, Don Wildmon, and Gary North,
promote conspiracy theories focusing on how Jews, Masons, and the
Illuminati are all working to control the world. Don Wildmon, of the
American Family Association, claimed that Hollywood is "run by jews
who are hostile to Christianity". Wildmon also has recruited known
Neonazis work for him. If you go through lists of antisemitic quotes
by Christian leaders in America, you will note that most of the same
people support Creationism, and sell creationist literature.
The Creationist movement itself doesn't specify any anti-semitic
tennants, but far too many of the people giving money to the movement
and promoting it clearly have made statements that suggest suspicion
of Jews, or which clearly indicate jewish Conspiracy beliefs.
------------------------
Links to back up many of the claims in this article:
Quotations from Contemporary and historical Christian leaders
www.weirdcrap.com/recreational/chrsquot.htm
Answers In Genesis Racist support
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_and_racism_response.htm
Presbyterians promote antisemitism at peace conference:
http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2004/02/05/news/local/bhate0206.txt
Bush White House checked with Rapture Christians before latest israel
Move
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0420,perlstein,53582,1.html
Kent Hovind's antisemitic comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind#From_mainstream_critics
Don Wildmon's Antisemitism:
http://www.seekgod.ca/cnp.wi-z.htm
alwaysaskingquestions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
Robert Weldon
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not too many lose the debate in the thread title ;)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
Not too many are too stupid to only read the thread title, and not the
text. If they did, they would realize that Godwin's Law doesn't
apply, and that the original poster actually makes some good points.
Why don't you do some reading and try to respond intelligently this
time?
mc...@sunset.net
fact be told is that the leaders of Nazism were evolutionists.
Consider Ernest Haeckel, the champion of evolution who started his
monist religion. This religion influence Hitler.
JM
Luminoso
I'm sick of Godwin. He was probably a closet NAZI who
invented this "law" to thwart rightful critics.
There ARE similarities between holocaust deniers and
staunch creationists. They're not identical, but their
amazing ability to not see something right in front of
thier faces is indeed a shared characteristic.
Ernest Major
<mccoy-117148793...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
mc...@sunset.net writes
Congress an organisation of abolitionists?
--
alias Ernest Major
Ye Old One
when s/he wrote:
>Psycho Dave may wish to label creationists holocaust deniers but the
>fact be told
But never by you.
>is that the leaders of Nazism were evolutionists.
This is a common lie from cretinists like you McClueless.
>Consider Ernest Haeckel, the champion of evolution who started his
>monist religion.
monism
n noun Philosophy & Theology
1 a theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a
distinction or duality, such as that between matter and mind, or God
and the world.
2 the doctrine that only one supreme being exists. Compare with
pluralism.
DERIVATIVES
monist noun & adjective
monistic adjective
> This religion influence Hitler.
Did it?
>
>JM
--
Bob.
Fooj
> In message
> <mccoy-1171487939.086404.161...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> m...@sunset.net writes>Psycho Dave may wish to label creationists holocaust deniers but the
> >fact be told is that the leaders of Nazism were evolutionists.
> >Consider Ernest Haeckel, the champion of evolution who started his
> >monist religion. This religion influence Hitler.
>
> >JM
>
> Just like Martin Luther was a philosemite, and the South Baptist
> Congress an organisation of abolitionists?
> --
> alias Ernest Major
Hitler believed an inferior theory of evolution. Get over it.
Ray Martinez
> Many people have criticized me for making comparisons between
> holocuast deniers and Creationists, saying that I go too far, or that
> the comparison is highly inappropriate. I disagree. Not only are my
> views on the connection between creationism and Holocaust denial
> appropriate, but I believe they are accurate and justified.
>
Since you are a Darwinist we are not surprised.
> Holocaust denial and Creationism don't just share common tactics and
> methodology in how they publicise and spread their message, They also
> share Antisemitism. Many evangelicals who support creationism deny any
> charges of antisemitism strongly, but there is a lot of documentary
> evidence to support the idea that at least some Evangelicals who are
> involved with the creationist movement, are, in fact, anti-semitic.
>
Antisemitism is a worldwide problem. They come in all shapes and sizes
and persuasions. You have no point except an obvious grinding axe
against persons who oppose your origins theory.
> Before I get into that, let me restate what I have previously claimed
> about the similarities between holocaust deniers and Creationists.
>
> (1) Both use conspiracy theories to support their claims. Holocaust
> Deniers frequently claim that "History is written by the victors", or
> that "History is controlled by the establishment." When reading
> Holocaust denial literature, they frequently claim that there is a
> secret conspiracy of Jews who have influence over governments, and who
> pressure people into accepting their "official version" of what
> happened in World War 2 with respect to the Nazi Attrocities against
> Jews. they claim that the establishment crushes all who go against
> this official version of history.
>
> Likewise, Creationist literature is full of the same conspiracy
> claims. They claim that the scientific establishment crushes all
> alternative viewpoints, and that evolution is promoted as the official
> word by a politically powerful organized movement within the
> establishment.
>
Judges who believe in evolution have made their rival (Creationism)
unconstitutional. This is the ultimate conspiracy of censorship ever
perpetrated in a civilized nation. By connecting the valid protest of
that unlawful action with Holocaust denial you are attempting to cover
and justify the corruption by a form of "poisoning the well."
What is even worse, decent persons know you are desecrating the memory
of 6 million Jews in order to grind your anti-Creationist axe. Could
we expect anything else from a person who believes apes morphed into
men over millions of years, instead of God created Adam?
> (2) Both say that it's important for children to be taught alternative
> views (their views, in particular) in school, and decide the truth for
> themselves. Of course, when it comes to other simlar topics in history
> and science, both holocaust deniers and creationists have nothing to
> say about presenting alternative views and letting kids decide for
> themselves.
>
Commentary is defending the current total censorship of Creationism,
by Darwinian Judges, in schools.
Again, your predictable perverted opinion is instantly explained when
we remember that you are an angry Darwinist.
> Answers In Genesis Racist supporthttp://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_and_racism_response.htm
>
> Presbyterians promote antisemitism at peace conference:http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.cleve...
>
> Bush White House checked with Rapture Christians before latest israel
> Movehttp://www.villagevoice.com/news/0420,perlstein,53582,1.html
>
> Kent Hovind's antisemitic comments:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind#From_mainstream_critics
>
> Don Wildmon's Antisemitism:http://www.seekgod.ca/cnp.wi-z.htm
Your hatred and slander of Evangelicals is explained by your atheism.
Since you initiated: Darwinism is more like Holocaust denial since the
crust of the Earth shows no signs of macroevolution and evolutionists
must argue an antonym (design = mindless process instead of Designer).
Why does Darwinism thrive despite the geological crust of the Earth
showing no signs of that which an evolutionary theory necessitates
(transitional) and the theory being built on an illogical assumption
(design does indicate invisible Designer)?
Answer: The same reason Holocaust denial thrives: hatred (of Jews) or
in this case hatred of the God of Genesis, which the Jews were chosen
by God to be His oracle. It is atheist evolutionists who hate the
source of theism (Old Testament and their Jewish writers).
We know the Holocaust is a fact and we know the Emperor (= ToE) is
naked. Design indicates invisible Designer and the crust of the Earth
does not show the ***reason for being*** claim of ToE (speciation) =
why we are Creationists.
Ray Martinez, Evangelical-Creationist
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "alwaysaskingquestions"
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>Not too many lose the debate in the thread title ;)
Well, this one didn't.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
Ummm...I don't think that means what you think it means.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Fooj" <deanlan...@hotmail.com>:
Hitler was a self-professed Christian and Social Darwinist
(which has zero to do with evolution or the ToE), and who
also believed in Aryan supremacy. Get over what?
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by mc...@sunset.net:
>Psycho Dave may wish to label creationists holocaust deniers but the
>fact be told is that the leaders of Nazism were evolutionists.
"Evolutionist" (assuming you mean someone who accepts the
evidence supporting the ToE) does not equal "Social
Darwinist". Hasn't this been pointed out to you on numerous
occasions?
>Consider Ernest Haeckel, the champion of evolution who started his
>monist religion. This religion influence Hitler.
Hitler was a Christian, as his writing shows. Stop trying to
imply otherwise.
Robert Weldon
You really have to have that reading comprehension problem fixed, or
stop lying. Dave is not labelling creationists holocaust deniers, he
is saying they share the same traits, such as selective utilizing of
evidence, quote mining, denial of reality and lying.
Robert Weldon
Your hatred of reality is evidenced by your insane postings.
>
> Since you initiated: Darwinism is more like Holocaust denial since the
> crust of the Earth shows no signs of macroevolution and evolutionists
> must argue an antonym (design = mindless process instead of Designer).
Liar. And just out of curiousity, how do you explain all those
dinosaurs, and all the other critters that no longer exist?
>
> Why does Darwinism thrive despite the geological crust of the Earth
> showing no signs of that which an evolutionary theory necessitates
> (transitional) and the theory being built on an illogical assumption
> (design does indicate invisible Designer)?
Really? You are lying again, the geological crust is filled to
bursting with transitional fossils.
>
> Answer: The same reason Holocaust denial thrives: hatred (of Jews) or
> in this case hatred of the God of Genesis, which the Jews were chosen
> by God to be His oracle. It is atheist evolutionists who hate the
> source of theism (Old Testament and their Jewish writers).
Insane kookfroth noted
>
> We know the Holocaust is a fact and we know the Emperor (= ToE) is
> naked. Design indicates invisible Designer and the crust of the Earth
> does not show the ***reason for being*** claim of ToE (speciation) =
> why we are Creationists.
>
> Ray Martinez, Insane Evangelical Apologist- Hide quoted text -
There, I fixed your label for you.
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Just wondering Ray, how is your new pastor working out? Is the new
Pastor Scott as good as the old Doctor Scott? I don't see you quoting
her. Has the congregation stuck around? How does she feel about her
new job, is it as fun and lucrative as the porn she used to do?
>
> - Show quoted text -
Desertphile
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 9:15 am, "Psycho Dave" <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
> > Many people have criticized me for making comparisons between
> > holocuast deniers and Creationists, saying that I go too far, or that
> > the comparison is highly inappropriate. I disagree. Not only are my
> > views on the connection between creationism and Holocaust denial
> > appropriate, but I believe they are accurate and justified.
> Since you are a Darwinist we are not surprised.
What the fuck do you mean by "Darwinist?"
--
"How did he know where we'd be?!" --- Maggie
"Because we'd be dead if he didn't!" -- Jake Speed
sasam
No, but the implication is there.
Why not compare creationism with revolutionary communist tactics wich
involve the very traits you try to pin on creationists? Because the
character smearing effect will then not be so effective.
The approach is not uncommon in politics but thoroughly detestable. If
you can associate your opponent with something very nasty (by direct
or indirect implication) you've been successful in your psycological
warfare. From this reasoning it follows that any person who questions
common origins must immediately be likened to a mass murderer. It
sounds crazy, but this is exactly the image that this association
creates in the sub-conscious!
The traits you have mentioned can be shown applicable to historical
frauds on the CO side. (Haeckel comes to mind) This is for those who
want to become involved in this mutual mud-slinging exercise.
Now, to illustrate the irrationality of this anti-semitist association
with creationism: The Torah contains Genesis and orthodoxical Jews
will also have their quota of literal interpretation of the Torah
regarding origins. They will then be creationists as per the
definition. They will then stand accused of anti-semitism by the
implication of the comparison.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Robert Weldon" <rwe...@jrp.ca> wrote in message
news:1171486673.6...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Whilst I accept the OP's rationale, I don't actually think it is a
particularly apt comparison.
First of all, Holocaust denial is very much a minority viewpoint and is
regarded as despicable by the vast majority of society; Creationism is not a
minority viewpoint - it seems to be a majority one in the USA at least - and
is certainly not regarded as despicable by society at large. I would be
concerned that attempts to link Creationism and Holocaust denial could
actually redound upon those challenging Creationism.
Secondly, IME most of those involved in Holocaust denial are *overtly*
anti-semitic. I think the majority of Creationists are not actively
committed to Creationism in the same way, most of them just follow the
beliefs taken from their parents without ever seriously thinking about them
or simply 'go with the flow' of their local culture; the OP makes this very
same point himself when he points out that it is only invidual leaders of
Creationism who can be directly accused of anti-semitism
Whilst it is right and proper to highlight the speicific ant-semitic
tendencies and other bigotry of such leaders of Creationism, this must be
done in such a way that it does not create martyrs for the Creationist
movement.Trying to label *all* creationists as being the same as Holocaust
deniers - with the obvious overtones of being neo-Nazis - is entirely
counter productive IMO.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:dca7t2d8l9i6njeup...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:21:34 -0000, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Not too many lose the debate in the thread title ;)
>
> Well, this one didn't.
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
>
> Ummm...I don't think that means what you think it means.
Yes I do know what it means. I've posted a longer reply to Robert Weldon but
my basic point is that however well-intentioned the OP - and I agree with
many of his points - by trying to link Creationism and Holocaust denial, he
is in danger of feeding the old "You're the Nazis .. no you're the *real*
Nazis" argument.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:dca7t2d8l9i6njeup...@4ax.com...
> in talk.origins, posted by "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Not too many lose the debate in the thread title ;)
>
> Well, this one didn't.
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
>
> Ummm...I don't think that means what you think it means.
I hadn't read the other replies when I posted my other response to you but I
see you have already been drawn into an argument about Hitler and ToE.
QED, I suggest :)
David Iain Greig
> On Feb 15, 2:44 am, "Robert Weldon" <rwel...@jrp.ca> wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 2:18 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
>>
>> > Psycho Dave may wish to label creationists holocaust deniers but the
>> > fact be told is that the leaders of Nazism were evolutionists.
>> > Consider Ernest Haeckel, the champion of evolution who started his
>> > monist religion. This religion influence Hitler.
>>
>> > JM
>>
>> You really have to have that reading comprehension problem fixed, or
>> stop lying. Dave is not labelling creationists holocaust deniers, he
>> is saying they share the same traits, such as selective utilizing of
>> evidence, quote mining, denial of reality and lying.
>
> No, but the implication is there.
No, it's not. Creationists and Holocaust deniers both have common
tactics in debate, but that just indicates the same sort of habits,
not the same set of ideals.
The misquoting, distortion of facts, denial of facts, the endless
repetition of false statements even when corrected, the refusal
to admit error, etc.
You could of course toss in UFO fans, but I don't see them running
around USENET misquoting SJ Gould or Colin Patterson, so I really
can't be sure, but I've seen endless examples of Creationsts and
Holocause Deniers pulling the same logical or rhetorical stunts
over and over and over to think there isn't some wierd similarity
on display, even though the actual subject matter is worlds apart.
If Creationists don't like the comparison, they shouldn't make is
so apt.
--D.
David Iain Greig
Anti-semitism has nothing to do with the similarity in debating style of
Creationits and Holocaust Deniers. It's anti-factism, anti-evidiencism,
and anti-quotism.
--D.
Psycho Dave
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not too many lose the debate in the thread title ;)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
The debate never happened, since you, like so many, looked at the
title, and ignored the content. Not one person (so far... I still have
about 10 message left to examine) criticising my article actually
brings up a single point I raised in the article, which indicates that
they never read it, and got stuck on the title.
Psycho Dave
> alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Robert Weldon" <rwel...@jrp.ca> wrote in message
Yes, which are points that I make. However, there are a lot of
antisemites on the side of creationists, and that needs to be
revealed.
Psycho Dave
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:21:34 -0000, "alwaysaskingquestions"
>
> >Not too many lose the debate in the thread title ;)
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
>
> I'm sick of Godwin. He was probably a closet NAZI who
> invented this "law" to thwart rightful critics.
>
> There ARE similarities between holocaust deniers and
> staunch creationists. They're not identical, but their
> amazing ability to not see something right in front of
> thier faces is indeed a shared characteristic.
Yes, and their ability to get stuck on titles of articles, rather than
criticize the content of them, is another thing they have in common.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Psycho Dave" <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote in message
news:1171546251.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Read my responses to Robert and Bob.
FWIW, I don't disgree with any of the individual points in your post, I just
don't consider it an apt comparison.
Psycho Dave
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes I do know what it means. I've posted a longer reply to Robert Weldon but
> my basic point is that however well-intentioned the OP - and I agree with
> many of his points - by trying to link Creationism and Holocaust denial, he
> is in danger of feeding the old "You're the Nazis .. no you're the *real*
> Nazis" argument.
That's not quite what I'm saying. There are plenty of antisemite
Evangelicals in America who are not Nazis. You do not have to be a
nazi to be an anti-semite.
However, the friendly relationships of creationist evangelicals like
Don Wildmon, Gary North, Gary Bauer, and others , have with known
Nazis is something to consider. Kent Hovind's statements on the
"Protocols of the Elders Of Zion" is also quite damaging.
Evangelical Christianity is seething with Jew-haters. It's their dark
side, and it's not well-hidden, yet they continue to try to hide it by
saying "Some of my best friends are Jews". Even Billy Graham got
caught on tape saying that he believes in the "Jews control the media/
Jews are destroying the country" mantra.
I think it is reasonable and fair to say that a person is an
antisemite, and/or closet-nazi if:
(1) They believe that a Jewish conspiracy controls the media or
government.
(2) They believe that there is a Jewish conspiracy to control Nations/
the world.
(3) They believe that Jews own all the banks or have an affinity for
money.
(4) They believe that Jews are ruining the country.
(5) They are automatically suspicious of Jews.
(6) Any combination of the above.
Psycho Dave
Here is another person who did not even read the article or respond to
any of the points made in it. Why don't you read the article and
respond to an actual point that was raised, rather than getting all
worked up over the title.
SeppoP
I think you are being unfair to McWitless. He doesn't have the required attention span
to read the whole article.
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Psycho Dave
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW, I don't disgree with any of the individual points in your post, I just
> don't consider it an apt comparison.
Well, great. Let's discuss that. What, in particular did you think was
not apt about my comparison? What individual points do you agree with?
What points did you disagree with?
The comparison I made is fair -- They use the same debate tactics,
they both suffer from dishonest research, and many of them
(creationists and holocaust revisionists) are documented having made
antisemitic or Jewish Conspiracy comments.
If all of those things are true, how is my comparison not apt?
If I said that Toyotas are a lot like Nissans, and I showed that Both
are made in Japan, both tend to be compact cars, both have similar
styles, and both are pioneering electric hybrid cars, would that be an
apt comparison, or not?
Fooj
> On 14 Feb 2007 14:43:29 -0800, the following appeared in
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hitler wasn't a deist. There is nothing special about his Catholic
brand of Unitarianism other than it being pro-Lamarckian and weird.
You give him to much credit by calling him a darwinist.
Psycho Dave
>
> Hitler believed an inferior theory of evolution. Get over it.
>
Actually, the Nazis promoted a bastardized version of evolution that
incorporated Social Darwinism. To call them evolutionists is sort of
like calling Kent Hovind a scientist, just because he has a degree and
talks about science.
David Iain Greig
Likewise there are anti-semites who are evolutionists. Matt Giwer
being a prime example.
I don't see a link between anti-semitism and Creationism, nor do
I see a link in any substantive way between Creationism and
Holocaust Denial. Tactics, yes, but substance, no. Likewise
I don't see a link between anti-semitism and evolution.
Of course, some people like to utter screeches of wounded pride
that I point out the similiarity in tactics employed by Creationists
and Holocaust Deniers, and claim I'm equating or linking their views.
I'm not. On the other hand, I see no end of Creationists who do link
the views of evolutionarey science to any number of other views they
dislike.
--D.
alwaysaskingquestions
> On Feb 15, 5:03 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes I do know what it means. I've posted a longer reply to Robert Weldon
>> but
>> my basic point is that however well-intentioned the OP - and I agree with
>> many of his points - by trying to link Creationism and Holocaust denial,
>> he
>> is in danger of feeding the old "You're the Nazis .. no you're the *real*
>> Nazis" argument.
>
> That's not quite what I'm saying.
And I'm not accusing you of saying that. My point was that it would
inevitably end up in in the old Nazi/Evolutionist argument as it already has
with people arging about Hitler the Christian v Hitler the Evolutionist
> There are plenty of antisemite
> Evangelicals in America who are not Nazis. You do not have to be a
> nazi to be an anti-semite.
But ant-semitism is the slippery slope to Naziism, just as any form of
racism is the slippery slope to some flavour of fascism.
> However, the friendly relationships of creationist evangelicals like
> Don Wildmon, Gary North, Gary Bauer, and others , have with known
> Nazis is something to consider. Kent Hovind's statements on the
> "Protocols of the Elders Of Zion" is also quite damaging.
Yes, these people do need to be exposed for what they are but I don't think
you can do that by extrapolating their attitudes to *all* Creationists.
> Evangelical Christianity is seething with Jew-haters. It's their dark
> side, and it's not well-hidden, yet they continue to try to hide it by
> saying "Some of my best friends are Jews". Even Billy Graham got
> caught on tape saying that he believes in the "Jews control the media/
> Jews are destroying the country" mantra.
> I think it is reasonable and fair to say that a person is an
> antisemite, and/or closet-nazi if:
>
> (1) They believe that a Jewish conspiracy controls the media or
> government.
> (2) They believe that there is a Jewish conspiracy to control Nations/
> the world.
> (3) They believe that Jews own all the banks or have an affinity for
> money.
> (4) They believe that Jews are ruining the country.
> (5) They are automatically suspicious of Jews.
> (6) Any combination of the above.
I put those people in the same category as those who believe that it was
really the CIA who blew up the Twin Towers or that the Moon Landings were a
major hoax or that Elvis Presley is still alive and well - gullible people
misled by a few dangerous individuals. But we have to attack those
individuals who cause the damage, not simply attack their followers as
stupid.
Most people don't like being made out to be stupid and if you try to tell
them they are, they will only take a harder line on holding onto their
beliefs.
John Wilkins
Let it be noted, though, that someone who says some of their best
friends are Jews may just be stating a fact.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
alwaysaskingquestions
> On Feb 15, 8:46 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I don't disgree with any of the individual points in your post, I
>> just
>> don't consider it an apt comparison.
>
> Well, great. Let's discuss that. What, in particular did you think was
> not apt about my comparison? What individual points do you agree with?
> What points did you disagree with?
Already said that I didn't disagree with any of the individual points, it
was the overall comparison I disagreed with and I've given you my reasons
for that in another response.
[...]
> If I said that Toyotas are a lot like Nissans, and I showed that Both
> are made in Japan, both tend to be compact cars, both have similar
> styles, and both are pioneering electric hybrid cars, would that be an
> apt comparison, or not?
If you used that comparison to make a conclusion about the Japanese people
in general then I might well disagree with you, depending on what your
conclusion was.
Psycho Dave
> Why not compare creationism with revolutionary communist tactics wich
> involve the very traits you try to pin on creationists? Because the
> character smearing effect will then not be so effective.
I am not trying to "pin traits on creationists". These traits are VERY
WELL DOCUMENTED, and Creationists have been caught time and time again
using deception, lying, fabricating stories, and misquoting experts.
When you "try to pin something" on someone, it is assumed that you are
trying to fabricate evidence to frame them. In the case of my article,
I did not have to fabricate anything. I can provide volumes of
documentary evidence fo creationist tactics that fit exactly what I
said.
>
> The approach is not uncommon in politics but thoroughly detestable. If
> you can associate your opponent with something very nasty (by direct
> or indirect implication) you've been successful in your psycological
> warfare. From this reasoning it follows that any person who questions
> common origins must immediately be likened to a mass murderer. It
> sounds crazy, but this is exactly the image that this association
> creates in the sub-conscious!
>
So what do you have to say about the prominant Creationists (such as
Kent Hovind, Don Wildmon, and others) who clearly have made comments
about Jews that are usually heard from antisemites and Holocaust
deniers? Kent Hovind believes that the protocols of the Elders Of Zion
proves tha tthere is a worldwide jewish Conspiracy. That alone would
make him an antisemite. The fact that he is one of the most visible
and prolific authors and debaters for the creationist movement doesn't
matter. However, if you show case after case of creationists who utter
or write (outside of their creationist literature) similar statements,
what does that say about the movement?
My point in making the comparison was simple. They are both dishonest
movements at their core, and they both employ the same dishonest
techniques in spreading their ideas.
> The traits you have mentioned can be shown applicable to historical
> frauds on the CO side. (Haeckel comes to mind) This is for those who
> want to become involved in this mutual mud-slinging exercise.
>
> Now, to illustrate the irrationality of this anti-semitist association
> with creationism: The Torah contains Genesis and orthodoxical Jews
> will also have their quota of literal interpretation of the Torah
> regarding origins. They will then be creationists as per the
> definition. They will then stand accused of anti-semitism by the
> implication of the comparison.
Just answer the following:
(1) Kent Hovind is a creationist. True or false?
(2) Kent Hovind wrote that he believes that the "Protocols of the
elders of Zion" proves that there is a worldwidse conspiracy of Jews.
True Or False?
(3) If someone promotes the idea that there is a conspiracy of Jews
trying to control the world or money, are they antisemitic?
(4) If I find several prominant Creationist authors/debaters who utter
or write Antisemitic statements or believe in crackpot antisemitic
theories, is it fair to say that the movement has an problem with
antisemitism? What percentage of prominant Creationists making
antisemitic statements would I need to uncover before i can say that
the movement has a problem with antisemitism?
Walter Bushell
"Psycho Dave" <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
> I am not trying to "pin traits on creationists". These traits are VERY
> WELL DOCUMENTED, and Creationists have been caught time and time again
> using deception, lying, fabricating stories, and misquoting experts.
Wurst, continuing in these activities _after_ they have been repeatedly
outed.
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any
charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his
peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totali-
tarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
Walter Bushell
"Psycho Dave" <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
> (3) If someone promotes the idea that there is a conspiracy of Jews
> trying to control the world or money, are they antisemitic?
Are there more conspiracies to control the world or money that are
composed of Christians or Muslims?
I would say corporation share that attribute, but its not a conspiracy,
because it's out in the open, in fact required by their charters in the
case of publicaly held corporations.
Walter Bushell
> No, it's not. Creationists and Holocaust deniers both have common
> tactics in debate, but that just indicates the same sort of habits,
> not the same set of ideals.
But if they do the same mental errors, they are likely to fall into the
same traps. A training in one makes it easier to be swayed by the
"logic" of the other.
>
> The misquoting, distortion of facts, denial of facts, the endless
> repetition of false statements even when corrected, the refusal
> to admit error, etc.
>
> You could of course toss in UFO fans, but I don't see them running
> around USENET misquoting SJ Gould or Colin Patterson, so I really
> can't be sure, but I've seen endless examples of Creationsts and
> Holocause Deniers pulling the same logical or rhetorical stunts
> over and over and over to think there isn't some wierd similarity
> on display, even though the actual subject matter is worlds apart.
--
Walter Bushell
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <mccoy-117148793...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> mc...@sunset.net writes
> >Psycho Dave may wish to label creationists holocaust deniers but the
> >fact be told is that the leaders of Nazism were evolutionists.
> >Consider Ernest Haeckel, the champion of evolution who started his
> >monist religion. This religion influence Hitler.
> >
> >JM
> >
> Just like Martin Luther was a philosemite, and the South Baptist
> Congress an organisation of abolitionists?
Now that the Southern Baptists admit that slavery was wrong, why do they
not unite with the group they split off from?
Walter Bushell
"Fooj" <deanlan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 6:36 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > On 14 Feb 2007 14:43:29 -0800, the following appeared in
> > talk.origins, posted by "Fooj" <deanlangenf...@hotmail.com>:
> >
> >
> >
> >
<snip>
>
> Hitler wasn't a deist. There is nothing special about his Catholic
> brand of Unitarianism other than it being pro-Lamarckian and weird.
> You give him to much credit by calling him a darwinist.
You have confused Aryanism (Supremacy of the Aryan peoples) and Arianism
(Belief in the Unity of God).
Desertphile
wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2007 13:18:59 -0800, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by mc...@sunset.net:
>> Psycho Dave may wish to label creationists
>> holocaust deniers but the
The sorry fact is that there must certainly be a great many
Holocaust deniers who are also evolution deniers (i.e.,
Creationists). This is because the two tend to be derived from the
same occult beliefs.
>> fact [sic] be told is that the leaders of Nazism
>> were evolutionists.
What the fuck does McCultist mean by "evolutionists?"
The Nazi (who were Christians) leaders would probably have no idea
what McCultist means by "evolutionist" also. Evolutionism is a
Fundamentalist Christian religious belief: the Nazis were
Christians but not Fundamentalist Christians.
> "Evolutionist" (assuming you mean someone who accepts the
> evidence supporting the ToE) does not equal "Social
> Darwinist". Hasn't this been pointed out to you on numerous
> occasions?
Quite true. And Nazism does not equal "social Darwinism."
> >Consider Ernest Haeckel, the champion of evolution who started his
> >monist religion. This religion influence Hitler.
Lutherism created Hitler.
> Hitler was a Christian, as his writing shows. Stop trying to
> imply otherwise.
That's all McCultsit has left: lies.
--
"How did he know where we'd be?!" --- Maggie
"Because we'd be dead if he didn't!" -- Jake Speed
Desertphile
wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2007 14:43:29 -0800, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "Fooj" <deanlan...@hotmail.com>:
>
> >On Feb 14, 3:58 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <mccoy-1171487939.086404.161...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> >> m...@sunset.net writes>Psycho Dave may wish to label creationists holocaust deniers but the
> >> >fact be told is that the leaders of Nazism were evolutionists.
> >> >Consider Ernest Haeckel, the champion of evolution who started his
> >> >monist religion. This religion influence Hitler.
> >>
> >> >JM
> >>
> >> Just like Martin Luther was a philosemite, and the South Baptist
> >> Congress an organisation of abolitionists?
> >> --
> >> alias Ernest Major
> >Hitler believed an inferior theory of evolution. Get over it.
Appears mental. The above is like saying "Geocentricist flat-
earthers believe an inferior theory of a heliocentric sphrical
earth."
It is like saying "Christians believe an inferior version of
Islam."
> Hitler was a self-professed Christian and Social Darwinist
> (which has zero to do with evolution or the ToE), and who
> also believed in Aryan supremacy. Get over what?
Fundamentalist Christians hate the fact that Hitler was in their
camp, engaging in their religion, worshiping their gods.
Lorentz
> views on the connection between creationism and Holocaust denial
> appropriate, but I believe they are accurate and justified.
>
I may add that there is a large overlap between the populations
of Holocaust Deniers and Creationists. I personally know many people
who are both Holocaust Deniers and Creationists. May I add that I met
someone who was a Holocaust Denier, a Creationist, and a Lunar Landing
Conspiracist all at the same time. I agree that the thought processes
involved in all three philosophies have common elements, so that many
of the arguments pass seamlessly from one issue to the other.
However, you should point out that many people can accept one and
adamantly oppose the other. For example, there are those Creationists
that not only admit to a Jewish Holocaust, but blame the Evolutionists
for the entire thing. I know Jewish Creationists who not only argue
against the Holocaust Deniers, but claim that less religious Jews
somehow convinced the Germans to do the whole thing. Many Creationists
use the information found by the lunar astronauts, especially the
information on the regolith, to "prove" that the earth is less than
10000 years old. And of course many of the Holocaust Deniers have been
involved in the space program, starting with the the children of those
German scientists who came over after World War II. They don't deny
the landing on the moon, because their parents helped get us there.
The reason is that all three philosophies contain internal
logical contradictions. One can prove any set of statements, even
mutually contradictory ones, from any logical inconsistency.
Therefore, one can choose to believe any philosophy one likes as long
as one holds to a logical inconsistency, i.e., a set of statements
that are intrinsically absurd. That is why a lot of these Holocaust
Deniers, Creationists, and Lunar Conspiracists have associated absurd
beliefs. They share core beliefs that are mutually inconsistence, and
hence allow anything. They have no "reality filter." If they are
correct in anything, it is an accident.
Luminoso
wrote:
Since I *DID* bother to comment on the assertions
contained within the text your critique is puzzling.
Lorentz
> regarded as despicable by the vast majority of society; Creationism is not a
> minority viewpoint - it seems to be a majority one in the USA at least - and
> is certainly not regarded as despicable by society at large. I would be
> concerned that attempts to link Creationism and Holocaust denial could
> actually redound upon those challenging Creationism.
arguements to support both sets of beliefs.
> Secondly, IME most of those involved in Holocaust denial are *overtly*
> anti-semitic.
I actually heard some of those people state, with complete
sincerety, that they are not anti-Semitic. They actually claimed that
they were not trying to persecute Jewish people, that they were
completely nonracist, and that they were just sticking to scientific
fact.
Many people in the discussion did not believe them, including I.
One of the skeptical people pointed out that part of their beliefs
concerning Jews was taken from the Protocols of Zion, which of course
was known to be a forgery. At which point one of the Deniers said that
the Protocols of Zion was not a forgery, that there was Zionist
conspiracy, and that it was lucky that the topic was brought up so he
can correct that urban myth (i.e., that the Protocols of Zion wasn't a
real Jewish plot). When it was pointed out that I may have been part
of the plot, two of the Deniers said that that was impossible. When
asked how they knew, they couldn't answer.
The thing is, they had a very tight arguement for all three
that included various types of magic, levels of conspiracy, rumors
(some of them local office gossip) and an entire etiology that
avoided logic. When a logical arguement was brought up, the accusation
was made that the statement was "legalistic." Accusations made that
the skeptics were repeating "politically correct" propaganda. When
skeptics actually started to quote Mein Kampf, the Deniers started to
claim that Hitler was misunderstood. One guy actually made the
statement that Hitler didn't kill Jews.
Another Denier said that the theory of evolution and Creationism
did not contradict each other. He claimed to be an evolution expert,
that he was an expert in the original Darwin, and that Darwin never
said that man was descended from apes. When people started to quote
from "Origin of the Species," he said that Darwin never said that. It
was all propaganda by politically correct propagandists. When some
one offered to bring out a book, this Denier said that they were all
being misled by the "Politically Correct culture."
By the way, I am not happy with the "Politically Correct"
culture either. I would gladly throw the left wing extremists on the
same garbage heap that I would throw these right wing extremists.
However, there is really no sharp boundary between any extremist
ideas. Any logical contradiction can be used to prove any other
logical contradiction. That is easily proven using Boolean algebra.
Susan S
Wilkins):
Let me be the first to say: Some of my best friends are Jews. And some
of my best relatives.
Susan Silberstein
Impeach the Cheerleader. Save the world.
Josh Hayes
> On Feb 15, 5:03 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes I do know what it means. I've posted a longer reply to Robert
>> Weldon but my basic point is that however well-intentioned the OP -
>> and I agree with many of his points - by trying to link Creationism
>> and Holocaust denial, he is in danger of feeding the old "You're the
>> Nazis .. no you're the *real* Nazis" argument.
>
> That's not quite what I'm saying. There are plenty of antisemite
> Evangelicals in America who are not Nazis. You do not have to be a
> nazi to be an anti-semite.
And maybe not even the other way around, as I heard this morning via
"wake up walmart", an organization to which I of course belong:
"On Nov. 9, 2006, a blog named Bent Corner revealed Wal-Mart was selling
a t-shirt with the insignia of Nazi Germany’s 3rd SS Division Totenkopf.
"On Nov. 13, 2006, Wal-Mart said it would stop selling and immediately
remove the t-shirts with the Nazi insignia.
"But, last week, bloggers from Consumerist were still able to buy the
offensive t-shirt at a Wal-Mart store in Georgia."
I wouldn't suggest that walmart are anti-semites, but geesh, selling
Nazi insignia clothing? What are we to think? Maybe that they're just
criminally stupid.
(BTW, if you'd like to sign a petition protesting these sales, you can
visit http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/feature/nazishirts/ to do so. Sorry
for the semi-spam nature of this.)
-JAH
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Ray Martinez"
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
<snip>
>Since you are a Darwinist we are not surprised.
"We"? You have a tapeworm?
<snip>
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "alwaysaskingquestions"
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:dca7t2d8l9i6njeup...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:21:34 -0000, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "alwaysaskingquestions"
>> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>Not too many lose the debate in the thread title ;)
>>
>> Well, this one didn't.
>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
>>
>> Ummm...I don't think that means what you think it means.
>
>Yes I do know what it means. I've posted a longer reply to Robert Weldon but
>my basic point is that however well-intentioned the OP - and I agree with
>many of his points - by trying to link Creationism and Holocaust denial, he
>is in danger of feeding the old "You're the Nazis .. no you're the *real*
>Nazis" argument.
OK, I take your point. But I disagree with your premise that
anyone is trying to "link" Creationism (specifically
Young-Earth Creationism, which engenders the greatest
controversy) and Holocaust denial in any way other than the
one stated: than both involve a refusal to accept
overwhelming evidence refuting their claims. Your point in
your response to RW, that this may be perceived as "dirty
fighting" and thus be counterproductive, doesn't change the
fact that it's a valid comparison. Valid arguments are
frequently painful.
loua...@yahoo.com
> On 14 Feb 2007 15:44:53 -0800, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "Ray Martinez"
> >Since you are a Darwinist we are not surprised.
>
> "We"? You have a tapeworm?
He's got a mouse in his pocket. And no, he's not happy to see you.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Psycho Dave"
<psy...@weirdcrap.com>:
>On Feb 15, 7:33 am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>> alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Robert Weldon" <rwel...@jrp.ca> wrote in message
>> >news:1171486673.6...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Feb 14, 1:21 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
>> >> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> Not too many lose the debate in the thread title ;)
>>
>> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
>>
>> >> Not too many are too stupid to only read the thread title, and not the
>> >> text. If they did, they would realize that Godwin's Law doesn't
>> >> apply, and that the original poster actually makes some good points.
>> >> Why don't you do some reading and try to respond intelligently this
>> >> time?
>>
>> > Whilst I accept the OP's rationale, I don't actually think it is a
>> > particularly apt comparison.
>>
>> > First of all, Holocaust denial is very much a minority viewpoint and is
>> > regarded as despicable by the vast majority of society; Creationism is not a
>> > minority viewpoint - it seems to be a majority one in the USA at least - and
>> > is certainly not regarded as despicable by society at large. I would be
>> > concerned that attempts to link Creationism and Holocaust denial could
>> > actually redound upon those challenging Creationism.
>>
>> > Secondly, IME most of those involved in Holocaust denial are *overtly*
>> > anti-semitic. I think the majority of Creationists are not actively
>> > committed to Creationism in the same way, most of them just follow the
>> > beliefs taken from their parents without ever seriously thinking about them
>> > or simply 'go with the flow' of their local culture; the OP makes this very
>> > same point himself when he points out that it is only invidual leaders of
>> > Creationism who can be directly accused of anti-semitism
>>
>> > Whilst it is right and proper to highlight the speicific ant-semitic
>> > tendencies and other bigotry of such leaders of Creationism, this must be
>> > done in such a way that it does not create martyrs for the Creationist
>> > movement.Trying to label *all* creationists as being the same as Holocaust
>> > deniers - with the obvious overtones of being neo-Nazis - is entirely
>> > counter productive IMO.
>>
>> Anti-semitism has nothing to do with the similarity in debating style of
>> Creationits and Holocaust Deniers. It's anti-factism, anti-evidiencism,
>> and anti-quotism.
>
>Yes, which are points that I make. However, there are a lot of
>antisemites on the side of creationists, and that needs to be
>revealed.
It already has been. There are even more anti-Semites among
the followers of Islam, but it's *specifically* the mindsets
and tactics which are under debate.
Bob Casanova
>On Feb 14, 4:18 pm, m...@sunset.net wrote:
>> Psycho Dave may wish to label creationists holocaust deniers but the
>> fact be told is that the leaders of Nazism were evolutionists.
>> Consider Ernest Haeckel, the champion of evolution who started his
>> monist religion. This religion influence Hitler.
>>
>> JM
>
>Here is another person who did not even read the article or respond to
>any of the points made in it. Why don't you read the article and
>respond to an actual point that was raised, rather than getting all
>worked up over the title.
Er, Dave? It's *McNameless* you're asking to read and
correctly evaluate a post. Perhaps you should reconsider...?
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Fooj" <deanlan...@hotmail.com>:
>On Feb 14, 6:36 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On 14 Feb 2007 14:43:29 -0800, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "Fooj" <deanlangenf...@hotmail.com>:
<snip>
>> >Hitler believed an inferior theory of evolution. Get over it.
>> Hitler was a self-professed Christian and Social Darwinist
>> (which has zero to do with evolution or the ToE), and who
>> also believed in Aryan supremacy. Get over what?
>Hitler wasn't a deist. There is nothing special about his Catholic
>brand of Unitarianism other than it being pro-Lamarckian and weird.
Sorry; I thought this was another "Hitler was an atheist" in
disguise. My apologies.
>You give him to much credit by calling him a darwinist.
Read again - *Social* Darwinist. If you're not familiar with
the term try Googling "Social Darwinism". One reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
Social Darwinism is to Darwinism as astrology is to
astronomy.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Desertphile
<deser...@nospam.org>:
>On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:33:49 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>> On 14 Feb 2007 13:18:59 -0800, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by mc...@sunset.net:
>
>>> Psycho Dave may wish to label creationists
>>> holocaust deniers but the
>
>The sorry fact is that there must certainly be a great many
>Holocaust deniers who are also evolution deniers (i.e.,
>Creationists). This is because the two tend to be derived from the
>same occult beliefs.
>
>>> fact [sic] be told is that the leaders of Nazism
>>> were evolutionists.
>
>What the fuck does McCultist mean by "evolutionists?"
Only his hairdresser knows for sure.
>The Nazi (who were Christians) leaders would probably have no idea
>what McCultist means by "evolutionist" also. Evolutionism is a
>Fundamentalist Christian religious belief: the Nazis were
>Christians but not Fundamentalist Christians.
>
>> "Evolutionist" (assuming you mean someone who accepts the
>> evidence supporting the ToE) does not equal "Social
>> Darwinist". Hasn't this been pointed out to you on numerous
>> occasions?
>
>Quite true. And Nazism does not equal "social Darwinism."
No, but the official position of the Party (i.e., Adolph)
accepted the concept.
>> >Consider Ernest Haeckel, the champion of evolution who started his
>> >monist religion. This religion influence Hitler.
>
>Lutherism created Hitler.
>
>> Hitler was a Christian, as his writing shows. Stop trying to
>> imply otherwise.
>
>That's all McCultsit has left: lies.
--
Bob C.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Susan S
<otoerem...@ix.netcom.com>:
>In talk.origins I read this message from j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
>Wilkins):
<snip>
>>Let it be noted, though, that someone who says some of their best
>>friends are Jews may just be stating a fact.
>Let me be the first to say: Some of my best friends are Jews. And some
>of my best relatives.
Thanks a bunch, Susan! (Iced tea all over the damn monitor
again...)
alwaysaskingquestions
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
Linking them in the title of a post is a pretty strong link, hence my
original comment..
> Your point in
> your response to RW, that this may be perceived as "dirty
> fighting" and thus be counterproductive, doesn't change the
> fact that it's a valid comparison.
I still don't think it's a valid comparison, I just don't like *all* members
of any group being categorised by the behaviour of *some* members of that
group. I fully accept BTW that many Creationists do just that but we
shouldn't lower ourselves to their standards
>Valid arguments are
> frequently painful.
Yes, but I don't think you have any chance of changing people's minds by
simply labelling them as members of a stupid or evil group.
The individual points the OP made were good points in themselves, if he had
focused on the anti-semitism and other traits among leading Creationists it
could have been a very good post, by trying to label Creationists in general
as similar to Holocasut Deniers, I think he let reason lose out to emotion.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171496693.2...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
snipping a lot of stuff already discussed
> Why does Darwinism thrive despite the geological crust of the Earth
> showing no signs of that which an evolutionary theory necessitates
> (transitional) and the theory being built on an illogical assumption
> (design does indicate invisible Designer)?
Ray, as you are quite aware the "geological crust of the Earth" shows many
signs of biological transition, including the fossil KNM WT 15000. Despite
your attempts to hide from this fossil, you are aware of it, and you have
never been able to produce any rational reason why it's not a transitional
form.
You know that this statement is not true, yet you continue to repeat it.
Why?
>
> Answer: The same reason Holocaust denial thrives: hatred (of Jews) or
> in this case hatred of the God of Genesis, which the Jews were chosen
> by God to be His oracle. It is atheist evolutionists who hate the
> source of theism (Old Testament and their Jewish writers).
Many people who accept evolution are not atheist, and show no signs of
hating Jews. The vast majority of Jewish scientists also accept the
physical evidence of evolution. Therefore your attempt to claim evolution
is related to anti-semitism fails.
>
> We know the Holocaust is a fact and we know the Emperor (= ToE) is
> naked.
Actually, Ray, the theory of evolution is quite 'clothed'. Your attempts
to claim the emperor is naked flies in the face of the evidence.
> Design indicates invisible Designer
Even if there were objective evidence of "design", that would not indicate
an "invisible" designer, especally when there is a known process that
produces the appearance of "design".
> and the crust of the Earth
> does not show the ***reason for being*** claim of ToE (speciation)
Speciation has been directly observed, without the need for fossils to
confirm it. However there are many transitional fossils discovered in the
"crust of the Earth".
=
> why we are Creationists.
You are a Creationist because it's what you want to believe. There is no
physical evidence to support your belief.
DJT
Psycho Dave
>
> I don't see a link between anti-semitism and Creationism, nor do
> I see a link in any substantive way between Creationism and
> Holocaust Denial. Tactics, yes, but substance, no. Likewise
> I don't see a link between anti-semitism and evolution.
>
Okay, let me see what you think about this...
(1) Do you agree that there is a lot of antisemitism (both the active
type and the passive type) in the Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian
movement in the United States? Virtually every leading figure in
Christian Fundamentalism has been caught uttering antisemitic things
(usually promoting Jewish-control conspiracy theories), and though
most followers do not deface Jewish cemetaries or admire Hitler or
wear Swastikkas, when you talk to them about Jews, a large proportion
of them will espouse belief in the conspiracy theories about how Jews
control money and/or politics, and are doing something to harm
Christians or freedom.
(2) Are the vast majority of Creationists of Christian Fundamentalist
Evangelical persuasion?
(3) Is a person who professes to beieve that "Jews run the country",
"Jews control all the banks", or "Jews are ruining society"
antisemitic?
(4) Does it not make sense that if Evangelical Fundamentalist
Christians have a large proportion of antisemites among them, that
Creationism, which is supported primarily by Christian Fundamentalist
Evangelicals, will have many people involved in it who are
antisemitic?
I am not saying that Creationists *ARE* holocaust deniers. I am saying
that they use the same tactics, *AND* to a larger degree, the people
who follow the creationist movement TEND TO HARBOR ANTISEMITIC
BELIEFS. It's not just a few nutcases in the movement like Kent
Hovind. It's a large proportion of the people involved from writing
the literature to simply following it or financially supporting it.
> Of course, some people like to utter screeches of wounded pride
> that I point out the similiarity in tactics employed by Creationists
> and Holocaust Deniers, and claim I'm equating or linking their views.
> I'm not. On the other hand, I see no end of Creationists who do link
> the views of evolutionarey science to any number of other views they
> dislike.
In the case of creationists who find links between racists and
evolution, it's nearly always distortion on their part, by cleverly
editing quotes by evolutionists, to make them say the exact opposite
of what they actually said. In the case I am presenting, it is
unedited direct quotes from Creationists and their supporters
(including leaders, movers, shakers, and major financial backers and
media promoters) in the Christian Fundamentalist evangelical community
that I am using.
Psycho Dave
>
> Since I *DID* bother to comment on the assertions
> contained within the text your critique is puzzling.- Hide quoted text -
>
Here's my quiz again:
(1) Is a person who professes to believe that "Jews control the
country/banks/world governments", or that "Jews are ruining society"
an antisemite?
(2) If it can be shown (and it can, very easily) that the Evangelical
Christian Fundamentlist movement has a large proportion of people in
it who profess statements like (1) above, does it indicate that a
large proportion of the movement is antisemitic or at least prone to
being antisemitic?
(3) If the vast majority of Creationists are Evangelical Christian
Fundamentalists (and they certainly are), does it not follow that a
large proportion of them will be prone to antisemitic beliefs?
David Iain Greig
> On Feb 15, 9:13 am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>>
>> I don't see a link between anti-semitism and Creationism, nor do
>> I see a link in any substantive way between Creationism and
>> Holocaust Denial. Tactics, yes, but substance, no. Likewise
>> I don't see a link between anti-semitism and evolution.
>>
>
> Okay, let me see what you think about this...
>
> (1) Do you agree that there is a lot of antisemitism (both the active
> type and the passive type) in the Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian
> movement in the United States?
I'm really not interested in the correlation between fundamentalism
and anti-semitism. I'm interested in the disturbing similarity in
tactics of both Creationists and Holocaust Deniers.
--D.
Psycho Dave
> Psycho Dave <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
> > (1) Do you agree that there is a lot of antisemitism (both the active
> > type and the passive type) in the Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian
> > movement in the United States?
>
> I'm really not interested in the correlation between fundamentalism
> and anti-semitism.
Perhaps you SHOULD be. It is the large proportion of Christian
Evangelicals with antisemitic beliefs that is largely responsible for
the spread of racism and antisemitism. The Correlation is ignored by a
lot of people, and many in the evangelical community with those
beliefs vote and run for public office.
> I'm interested in the disturbing similarity in
> tactics of both Creationists and Holocaust Deniers.
Sure, and I discussed that. You seem to be avoiding the issue -- that
which you objected to is something that I believe is well documented
-- the large proportion of antisemitics in the Fundamentalist
Evangelical Christian movement, and how that antisemitism finds it's
way into the creationist camp. You appear to be avoiding the issue
that you raised yourself.
Mark Isaak
> Here's my quiz again:
>
> (1) Is a person who professes to believe that "Jews control the
> country/banks/world governments", or that "Jews are ruining society"
> an antisemite?
Yes.
> (2) If it can be shown (and it can, very easily) that the Evangelical
> Christian Fundamentlist movement has a large proportion of people in
> it who profess statements like (1) above, does it indicate that a
> large proportion of the movement is antisemitic or at least prone to
> being antisemitic?
Yes. But your "if" clause is a huge "if." I don't know how it is
possible to show that.
> (3) If the vast majority of Creationists are Evangelical Christian
> Fundamentalists (and they certainly are),
In the United States. I am not so sure that is true worldwide.
> does it not follow that a
> large proportion of them will be prone to antisemitic beliefs?
No. A simplified version of your syllogism is:
Some Evangelicals are antisemites.
Some Evangelicals are creationists.
Therefore, some creationists are antisemites.
which, as it stands, is invalid.
Now, if you plug in high enough proportions for the "some" in the
premises, then you can guarantee a large proportion in the conclusion.
But you have not plugged in any numbers, much less large ones.
Incidentally, the only creationist holocaust denier that I know of
(Harun Yahya) is not Christian, much less Evangelical.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Luminoso
wrote:
>On Feb 15, 2:48 pm, lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote:
>
>>
>> Since I *DID* bother to comment on the assertions
>> contained within the text your critique is puzzling.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>Here's my quiz again:
>
>(1) Is a person who professes to believe that "Jews control the
>country/banks/world governments", or that "Jews are ruining society"
>an antisemite?
In theory : (a) Whether or not Jews run things is an objective
issue that has no relevance to ones feelings
about Jews. Jews either are, or aren't, running
the world.
(b) If Jews ARE running the world, anti-semitism only
exists if a person think this is bad BECAUSE
it's Jews running things instead of someone else.
In practice : Yep - fair chance of the accuser being an anti-semite
>(2) If it can be shown (and it can, very easily) that the Evangelical
>Christian Fundamentlist movement has a large proportion of people in
>it who profess statements like (1) above, does it indicate that a
>large proportion of the movement is antisemitic or at least prone to
>being antisemitic?
In theory : No
In practice : Maybe. You'd have to ask each one and see if
they think it's bad having Jews, as opposed to
any other group, running things.
>(3) If the vast majority of Creationists are Evangelical Christian
>Fundamentalists (and they certainly are), does it not follow that a
>large proportion of them will be prone to antisemitic beliefs?
See (2) above.
Oh, and you forgot to conclude that creationism is wrong
because creationists are anti-semites - just like the sky
isn't blue because Hitler once said it was ... :-)
Be very careful with over-generalizations and chains of
logic that depend on them. And then there's the unspoken
non-sequitur ...
Robert Grumbine
[snip points of agreement]
>Incidentally, the only creationist holocaust denier that I know of
>(Harun Yahya) is not Christian, much less Evangelical.
Doesn't David Ford qualify for Christian creationist holocaust denier?
Not sure about evangelist. Could be wrong about holocaust denial as
well, since I don't read him.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
David Iain Greig
How about you tend your own store, and I'll tend mine. I'm sure
you do a fine job handling the other stuff.
--D. 'run along now'
David Iain Greig
> In article <pan.2007.02.16....@earthlink.net>,
> Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 05:12:57 -0800, Psycho Dave wrote:
>
> [snip points of agreement]
>
>>Incidentally, the only creationist holocaust denier that I know of
>>(Harun Yahya) is not Christian, much less Evangelical.
>
> Doesn't David Ford qualify for Christian creationist holocaust denier?
> Not sure about evangelist. Could be wrong about holocaust denial as
> well, since I don't read him.
I have him tagged and killfiled, so I dunno about the Denial aspect.
--D.
Fooj
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:36:03 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> wrote:
> > On 14 Feb 2007 14:43:29 -0800, the following appeared in
>
> > >On Feb 14, 3:58 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> In message
> > >> <mccoy-1171487939.086404.161...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> > >> m...@sunset.net writes>Psycho Dave may wish to label creationists holocaust deniers but the
> > >> >fact be told is that the leaders of Nazism were evolutionists.
> > >> >Consider Ernest Haeckel, the champion of evolution who started his
> > >> >monist religion. This religion influence Hitler.
>
> > >> >JM
>
> > >> Just like Martin Luther was a philosemite, and the South Baptist
> > >> Congress an organisation of abolitionists?
> > >> --
> > >> alias Ernest Major
> > >Hitler believed an inferior theory of evolution. Get over it.
>
> Appears mental. The above is like saying "Geocentricist flat-
> earthers believe an inferior theory of a heliocentric sphrical
> earth."
>
> It is like saying "Christians believe an inferior version of
> Islam."
>
> > Hitler was a self-professed Christian and Social Darwinist
> > (which has zero to do with evolution or the ToE), and who
> > also believed in Aryan supremacy. Get over what?
>
> Fundamentalist Christians hate the fact that Hitler was in their
> camp, engaging in their religion, worshiping their gods.
Being an evolutionist from a non-darwinian theory makes him far from
being a fundamentalist or even a deist.
Fooj
> In article <1171548546.162447.139...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "Fooj" <deanlangenf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 6:36 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > On 14 Feb 2007 14:43:29 -0800, the following appeared in
> > > talk.origins, posted by "Fooj" <deanlangenf...@hotmail.com>:
>
>
>
>
> > Hitler wasn't a deist. There is nothing special about his Catholic
> > brand of Unitarianism other than it being pro-Lamarckian and weird.
>
> (Belief in the Unity of God).
>
No, I don't.
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171496693.2...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> snipping a lot of stuff already discussed
>
> > Why does Darwinism thrive despite the geological crust of the Earth
> > (transitional) and the theory being built on an illogical assumption
> > (design does indicate invisible Designer)?
>
> Ray, as you are quite aware the "geological crust of the Earth" shows many
> signs of biological transition, including the fossil KNM WT 15000.
I just said the geological crust of the Earth *does not* show
transitionality. Why do you have me "aware" of the exact opposite? Or
is brazen misrepresentation of your opponent just the way you operate
(1)?
You should correct your mistake, Dana.
Or are you still upset at me for calling you a racist and liar (2)?
Your "mistake" supports my conclusions, both of them (1) and (2).
And KNM WT 15000 is not part of the geological crust of the Earth -
never was. The specimen is a component of a "larger" paucity of
evidence that attempts to support the extraordinary claim of human
evolution. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and
human evolution comes nowhere near the criteria. Human evolution is
ASSUMED based on the discovery of bird micro-mutability by Darwin
circa 1837.
Darwin ended his life admitting that the *geological* fossil record (=
that which is not separated from the crust of the Earth by human
hands) does not show species transitioning. In response, Darwinists
like Jon Barber attempt to caricature the fact of absence by asserting
that Darwin's explanation somehow negates the fact. Every evolutionary
authority to date admits the undisturbed fossil record does not show
the main claim of an evolutionary theory, except if what is seen is
interpreted antonymically (transitionality at "geologic time" = a
Gould invent attempting to make the crust of the Earth evolution
friendly).
> Despite
> your attempts to hide from this fossil, you are aware of it, and you have
> never been able to produce any rational reason why it's not a transitional
> form.
>
> You know that this statement is not true, yet you continue to repeat it.
> Why?
>
Re-read above, honest Abe.
>
>
> > Answer: The same reason Holocaust denial thrives: hatred (of Jews) or
> > in this case hatred of the God of Genesis, which the Jews were chosen
> > by God to be His oracle. It is atheist evolutionists who hate the
> > source of theism (Old Testament and their Jewish writers).
>
> Many people who accept evolution are not atheist, and show no signs of
> hating Jews. The vast majority of Jewish scientists also accept the
> physical evidence of evolution. Therefore your attempt to claim evolution
> is related to anti-semitism fails.
>
Psycho Dave (= Darwinist) started this nonsense I just gave him a
taste of his own hillbilly logic.
Ray
SNIP....
Bob Casanova
OK.
>> Your point in
>> your response to RW, that this may be perceived as "dirty
>> fighting" and thus be counterproductive, doesn't change the
>> fact that it's a valid comparison.
>
>I still don't think it's a valid comparison, I just don't like *all* members
>of any group being categorised by the behaviour of *some* members of that
>group. I fully accept BTW that many Creationists do just that but we
>shouldn't lower ourselves to their standards
I think if you consider what's actually under discussion
you'll see that this is an invalid accusation. If the
question had been whether all Creationists are Holocaust
deniers or vice-versa you'd have a valid point. But since
the actual topic is the similarity in tactics, and since
those tactics (denial of evidence and refusal to consider
any evidence which contradicts their position) are
essentially definitive for both (else how could they be
either Holocaust deniers on the one hand or YECs on the
other) you don't. If you know of any counterexamples I'd be
interested in them, but as I see it one can't be either a
Holocaust denier or a YEC and *not* exhibit these tactics.
>>Valid arguments are
>> frequently painful.
>
>Yes, but I don't think you have any chance of changing people's minds by
>simply labelling them as members of a stupid or evil group.
Frankly, I don't think the minds of those who categorically
refuse to even examine the evidence against their chosen
positions *can* be changed, no matter how much sweet reason
is used. Of course, YMMV.
>The individual points the OP made were good points in themselves, if he had
>focused on the anti-semitism and other traits among leading Creationists it
>could have been a very good post
True, but although also valid that would have been a
completely different claim, and (apparently; I'm not a mind
reader) not one he chose to pursue.
>, by trying to label Creationists in general
>as similar to Holocasut Deniers, I think he let reason lose out to emotion.
I don't, and I think his point was completely valid, given
the actual comparison of tactics rather than the imputed
association seen by some, but not actually present in his
post. He didn't label them as similar, he said they use
similar (really identical) tactics. Which, of course, they
do.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:21:44 -0000, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>
[...]
>>Linking them in the title of a post is a pretty strong link, hence my
>>original comment..
>
> OK.
>
[...]
>>I still don't think it's a valid comparison, I just don't like *all*
>>members
>>of any group being categorised by the behaviour of *some* members of that
>>group. I fully accept BTW that many Creationists do just that but we
>>shouldn't lower ourselves to their standards
>
> I think if you consider what's actually under discussion
> you'll see that this is an invalid accusation.
Maybe, but without belabouring the issue, it was the title of the thread
that I had a go at - "Creationists are just like Holocaust Deniers." When I
saw that, I was disinclined to even read the post initially, I thought it
was just going to be another emotive rant. If the title had been something
like "Common traits among Creationists and Holocaust Deniers" it would have
been much better IMO.
[...]
>>>Valid arguments are
>>> frequently painful.
>>
>>Yes, but I don't think you have any chance of changing people's minds by
>>simply labelling them as members of a stupid or evil group.
>
> Frankly, I don't think the minds of those who categorically
> refuse to even examine the evidence against their chosen
> positions *can* be changed, no matter how much sweet reason
> is used. Of course, YMMV.
For the majority of the Creationist followers as opposed to Creationist
leaders, I don't think it's a case of refusing to examine the evidence, it's
more a case of having no real interest in the subject. The vast majority of
people IME have little real knowledge or understanding of modern science
and ToE, they have a vague idea of Big Bang happening one time and think
that ToE is all about us descending from monkeys.
I think the best way of winning the battle against Creationism is by trying
to get the truth about science in its own rights across in a more popular
way, not by trying to fight Creationism head on; the one exception, of
course, is the battle about schooling in the US - that has to be tackled
head on. The only disappointment I had about Dover was that the judge
rejected ID because it's 'not science' rather than coming out and clearly
saying 'it's a particular brand of fundamental religion in disguise'.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Feb 15, 7:36 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1171496693.2...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> snipping a lot of stuff already discussed
>>
>> > Why does Darwinism thrive despite the geological crust of the Earth
>> > showing *no signs* of that which an evolutionary theory necessitates
>> > (transitional) and the theory being built on an illogical assumption
>> > (design does indicate invisible Designer)?
>>
>> Ray, as you are quite aware the "geological crust of the Earth" shows many
>> signs of biological transition, including the fossil KNM WT 15000.
>
>I just said the geological crust of the Earth *does not* show
>transitionality.
But it does Dishonest Ray - except in the rare case of multiple
specimens dying and being fossilized together, every fossil is a
transitional.
>Why do you have me "aware" of the exact opposite?
Because many people have educated you on this before, correcting your
blatant lie on the subject. You are therefore lying again if you say
you are not aware of the facts. You, in your usual dishonesty, my try
to avoid the facts, but you cannot say (without lying) that you are
unaware of them.
> Or
>is brazen misrepresentation of your opponent just the way you operate
>(1)?
No, it is the way you operate Dishonest Ray.
>
>You should correct your mistake, Dana.
>
>Or are you still upset at me for calling you a racist and liar (2)?
>
>Your "mistake" supports my conclusions, both of them (1) and (2).
>
>And KNM WT 15000 is not part of the geological crust of the Earth -
>never was. The specimen is a component of a "larger" paucity of
>evidence that attempts to support the extraordinary claim of human
>evolution. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and
>human evolution comes nowhere near the criteria. Human evolution is
>ASSUMED based on the discovery of bird micro-mutability by Darwin
>circa 1837.
Human evolution is demonstrated by a large number of fossils covering
about 14 million years of our development.
>
>Darwin ended his life admitting that the *geological* fossil record (=
>that which is not separated from the crust of the Earth by human
>hands) does not show species transitioning.
He said no such thing.
>In response, Darwinists
>like Jon Barber attempt to caricature the fact of absence by asserting
>that Darwin's explanation somehow negates the fact. Every evolutionary
>authority to date admits the undisturbed fossil record does not show
>the main claim of an evolutionary theory,
Cite?
> except if what is seen is
>interpreted antonymically (transitionality at "geologic time" = a
>Gould invent attempting to make the crust of the Earth evolution
>friendly).
No need to "make" it evolution friendly - it already is.
>
>> Despite
>> your attempts to hide from this fossil, you are aware of it, and you have
>> never been able to produce any rational reason why it's not a transitional
>> form.
>>
>> You know that this statement is not true, yet you continue to repeat it.
>> Why?
>>
>
>Re-read above, honest Abe.
Your dishonesty is, as usual, clear to us all.
>
>>
>>
>> > Answer: The same reason Holocaust denial thrives: hatred (of Jews) or
>> > in this case hatred of the God of Genesis, which the Jews were chosen
>> > by God to be His oracle. It is atheist evolutionists who hate the
>> > source of theism (Old Testament and their Jewish writers).
>>
>> Many people who accept evolution are not atheist, and show no signs of
>> hating Jews. The vast majority of Jewish scientists also accept the
>> physical evidence of evolution. Therefore your attempt to claim evolution
>> is related to anti-semitism fails.
>>
>
>Psycho Dave (= Darwinist) started this nonsense I just gave him a
>taste of his own hillbilly logic.
Not the brightest of people are you Dishonest Ray?
>
>
>Ray
>
>SNIP....
>
--
Bob.
Psycho Dave
> On 16 Feb 2007 05:12:57 -0800, "Psycho Dave" <psy...@weirdcrap.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 15, 2:48 pm, lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote:
>
> >> Since I *DID* bother to comment on the assertions
> >> contained within the text your critique is puzzling.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >Here's my quiz again:
>
> >(1) Is a person who professes to believe that "Jews control the
> >country/banks/world governments", or that "Jews are ruining society"
> >an antisemite?
>
> In theory : (a) Whether or not Jews run things is an objective
> issue that has no relevance to ones feelings
> about Jews. Jews either are, or aren't, running
> the world.
>
> (b) If Jews ARE running the world, anti-semitism only
> exists if a person think this is bad BECAUSE
> it's Jews running things instead of someone else.
But any intelligent person who does the research knows that the jewish
conspiracy theories are all BUNK. Jews do not control the world. The
objective facts have already been established time and time again.
Whether or not Jews run the world is an objective issue -- and all the
objective facts that have ever been collected show that there is
absolutely no substance to it. So anyone who believes that the jews
run the world/country/media/banks is making a statement based on
ignorance of the facts, and their emotions about Jews. Therefore,
people who make such claims (that the jews are in control of the
coutnry/world/media/banks) are antisemitic.
>
> In practice : Yep - fair chance of the accuser being an anti-semite
>
> >(2) If it can be shown (and it can, very easily) that the Evangelical
> >Christian Fundamentlist movement has a large proportion of people in
> >it who profess statements like (1) above, does it indicate that a
> >large proportion of the movement is antisemitic or at least prone to
> >being antisemitic?
>
> In theory : No
Wait a second. If I can show that most cooking pots are made of metal,
does it not follow that "a large proportion of cooking pots are made
of metal" is a true statement?
I have shown with research that the leadership of the Christian
Evangelical Fundamentalist movement, a veritable who's who of names
from the Christian Coalition, TV Evangelism, and even Billy "squeaky-
clean" Graham, as well as many major politicians, believe in the
Jewish conspiracy theory. Billy Graham professed it to Richard Nixon
on tape, and apologized for it (CLaiming to have not remembered a word
of what he said). Pat Robertson wrote a book about it (The New World
Order), and numerous other figured from the ranks of the Evangelical
moement have professed the Jewish conspiracy theory. These people
preach in front of large congregations. These congregations follow
them and take their word for granted.
>
> In practice : Maybe. You'd have to ask each one and see if
> they think it's bad having Jews, as opposed to
> any other group, running things.
You do not have to ask each one. You nearly need to establish enough
survey samples and measure the proportions of each sample. I can quote-
mine Evangelical antisemitic quotes all day, but it will never give me
a good idea of how many total people in the movement believe the
Jewish Conspiracy theory. Survey samples can give a better idea of the
percentage.
> >(3) If the vast majority of Creationists are Evangelical Christian
> >Fundamentalists (and they certainly are), does it not follow that a
> >large proportion of them will be prone to antisemitic beliefs?
>
> See (2) above.
>
> Oh, and you forgot to conclude that creationism is wrong
> because creationists are anti-semites - just like the sky
> isn't blue because Hitler once said it was ... :-)
Nope -- I wasn't going to make that claim.
Dana Tweedy
> On Feb 15, 7:36 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1171496693.2...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> snipping a lot of stuff already discussed
>>
>> > Why does Darwinism thrive despite the geological crust of the Earth
>> > showing *no signs* of that which an evolutionary theory necessitates
>> > (transitional) and the theory being built on an illogical assumption
>> > (design does indicate invisible Designer)?
>>
>> Ray, as you are quite aware the "geological crust of the Earth" shows
>> many
>> signs of biological transition, including the fossil KNM WT 15000.
>
> I just said the geological crust of the Earth *does not* show
> transitionality.
Which is false, and you know it.
> Why do you have me "aware" of the exact opposite?
Because you must be aware of those facts, as they have been presented to you
many times, and you have been unable to refute, or even address them
cogently.
> Or
> is brazen misrepresentation of your opponent just the way you operate
> (1)?
I have never misrepresented my opponent, "brazenly" or otherwise. You, on
the other hand deliberately took my words out of context in an ealier post
in order to falsely label me a racist.
>
> You should correct your mistake, Dana.
What mistake?
>
> Or are you still upset at me for calling you a racist and liar (2)?
Not so much "upset" as appalled at your dishonesty. You know that I'm
neither, yet you make those claims.
>
> Your "mistake" supports my conclusions, both of them (1) and (2).
What "mistake"? You are aware that there are transitional forms in the
fossil record. You try to deny them, but you know they are there.
>
> And KNM WT 15000 is not part of the geological crust of the Earth -
It was dug up from that "geological crust of the Earth" (a someone redundant
statement)
> never was.
Then where was it, before it was unearthed?
> The specimen is a component of a "larger" paucity of
> evidence that attempts to support the extraordinary claim of human
> evolution.
How can an obvious example of a transitional form, one of hundreds of such,
be part of a "paucity"?
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and
> human evolution comes nowhere near the criteria.
True, human evolution is nowhere near an extraordinary claim. The evidence
for human evolution is very extensive, and goes far beyond the fossil
record, which is extensive just by itself.
> Human evolution is
> ASSUMED based on the discovery of bird micro-mutability by Darwin
> circa 1837.
No, the fact of human evolution was originally based on the anatomical,
physical, and behavioral similarities of humans to other apes. The
fossil, biochemical, and genetic evidence have confirmed this. Darwin did
not base his theory on the 'micromutablity" (apparently another word for
evolution) of the finches in the Galapagos. That study came later, after
Darwin himself had passed away.
>
> Darwin ended his life admitting that the *geological* fossil record (=
> that which is not separated from the crust of the Earth by human
> hands) does not show species transitioning.
No, he didn't. By the time Darwin died, there were already discoveries of
Archaeopteryx, one of the most famous and obvious examples of a transitional
form, and in human evolution, Neanderthal fossils had been discovered.
Within a few decades of Darwin's death, Homo erectus, the same species as
KNM WT 15000, had been found.
> In response, Darwinists
> like Jon Barber attempt to caricature the fact of absence by asserting
> that Darwin's explanation somehow negates the fact.
What 'fact' is that? You misrepresent Darwin, and accuse others of making
a caricature?
> Every evolutionary
> authority to date admits the undisturbed fossil record does not show
> the main claim of an evolutionary theory,
That is another false claim. In the first place, science does not depend
on "authorities" but on the evidence. The evidence clearly shows there are
intermediate forms.
> except if what is seen is
> interpreted antonymically (transitionality at "geologic time" = a
> Gould invent attempting to make the crust of the Earth evolution
> friendly).
You are now misrepresenting Gould, and the fossil record. Gould quite
clearly stated that transitional forms are abundant above the species level.
>
>> Despite
>> your attempts to hide from this fossil, you are aware of it, and you have
>> never been able to produce any rational reason why it's not a
>> transitional
>> form.
>>
>> You know that this statement is not true, yet you continue to repeat it.
>> Why?
>>
>
> Re-read above, honest Abe.
The above simply shows your own dishonesty. You know there are
transitional fossils, including KNM WT 15000. Your refusal to discuss the
fossil, and your attempts to libel me in the process shows you won't deal
with it honestly.
>
>>
>>
>> > Answer: The same reason Holocaust denial thrives: hatred (of Jews) or
>> > in this case hatred of the God of Genesis, which the Jews were chosen
>> > by God to be His oracle. It is atheist evolutionists who hate the
>> > source of theism (Old Testament and their Jewish writers).
>>
>> Many people who accept evolution are not atheist, and show no signs of
>> hating Jews. The vast majority of Jewish scientists also accept the
>> physical evidence of evolution. Therefore your attempt to claim
>> evolution
>> is related to anti-semitism fails.
>>
>
> Psycho Dave (= Darwinist) started this nonsense I just gave him a
> taste of his own hillbilly logic.
Your "dose" however is based on misrepresentation, and misunderstanings.
Your own falsehoods are not an effective counter.
Note that Ray snipped evidence that contradicted his statements about
Dobzhansky.
DJT
mc...@sunset.net
> On 14 Feb 2007 14:43:29 -0800, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "Fooj" <deanlangenf...@hotmail.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 14, 3:58 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <mccoy-1171487939.086404.161...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> >> m...@sunset.net writes>Psycho Dave may wish to label creationists holocaust deniers but the
> >> >fact be told is that the leaders of Nazism were evolutionists.
> >> >Consider Ernest Haeckel, the champion of evolution who started his
> >> >monist religion. This religion influence Hitler.
>
> >> >JM
>
> >> Just like Martin Luther was a philosemite, and the South Baptist
> >> Congress an organisation of abolitionists?
> >> --
> >> alias Ernest Major
>
> >Hitler believed an inferior theory of evolution. Get over it.
>
> (which has zero to do with evolution or the ToE), and who
> also believed in Aryan supremacy. Get over what?
I heard a neonazi on the radio and when he was confronted about some
things in the Bible he said that the Bible isn't to be taken
literally. This is what Dana Tweedy does when he tries to promote his
evolution-first faith.
JM
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark VandeWettering
> On Feb 14, 4:36 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On 14 Feb 2007 14:43:29 -0800, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "Fooj" <deanlangenf...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 14, 3:58 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> In message
>> >> <mccoy-1171487939.086404.161...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> m...@sunset.net writes>Psycho Dave may wish to label creationists holocaust deniers but the
>> >> >fact be told is that the leaders of Nazism were evolutionists.
>> >> >Consider Ernest Haeckel, the champion of evolution who started his
>> >> >monist religion. This religion influence Hitler.
>>
>> >> >JM
>>
>> >> Just like Martin Luther was a philosemite, and the South Baptist
>> >> Congress an organisation of abolitionists?
>> >> --
>> >> alias Ernest Major
>>
>> >Hitler believed an inferior theory of evolution. Get over it.
>>
>> Hitler was a self-professed Christian and Social Darwinist
>> (which has zero to do with evolution or the ToE), and who
>> also believed in Aryan supremacy. Get over what?
>
> I heard a neonazi on the radio and when he was confronted about some
> things in the Bible he said that the Bible isn't to be taken
> literally. This is what Dana Tweedy does when he tries to promote his
> evolution-first faith.
Didn't your mother warn you against telling fibs?
Mark
Ye Old One
when s/he wrote:
>On Feb 14, 4:36 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On 14 Feb 2007 14:43:29 -0800, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "Fooj" <deanlangenf...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 14, 3:58 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> In message
>> >> <mccoy-1171487939.086404.161...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> m...@sunset.net writes>Psycho Dave may wish to label creationists holocaust deniers but the
>> >> >fact be told is that the leaders of Nazism were evolutionists.
>> >> >Consider Ernest Haeckel, the champion of evolution who started his
>> >> >monist religion. This religion influence Hitler.
>>
>> >> >JM
>>
>> >> Just like Martin Luther was a philosemite, and the South Baptist
>> >> Congress an organisation of abolitionists?
>> >> --
>> >> alias Ernest Major
>>
>> >Hitler believed an inferior theory of evolution. Get over it.
>>
>> Hitler was a self-professed Christian and Social Darwinist
>> (which has zero to do with evolution or the ToE), and who
>> also believed in Aryan supremacy. Get over what?
>
>I heard a neonazi on the radio and when he was confronted about some
>things in the Bible he said that the Bible isn't to be taken
>literally.
Then he does have a few more brain cells than you.
> This is what Dana Tweedy does when he tries to promote his
>evolution-first faith.
Dana has a LOT more brain cells than you.
>
>JM
>
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "Evidence confirming an observation is
>> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>> - McNameless- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
Why the stupid sig McClueless?
--
Bob.
Free Lunch
Mark VandeWettering <wett...@attbi.com> wrote in
<slrnetf4e7.2...@fishtank.brainwagon.org>:
Does McC*y tell fibs? Usually the ones I see are fully bore, unstinting
lies that anyone in kindergarten would notice.
Mark VandeWettering
In fact, it's there absolutely transparent absurdity which makes me treat
them as the ravings of four year old. He'd have us believe that he heard
a neo Nazi argue for a non-literal translation of the Bible. Yeah.
Mark
Luminoso
But you haven't "shown" ... only "said".
>I have shown with research that the leadership of the Christian
>Evangelical Fundamentalist movement, a veritable who's who of names
>from the Christian Coalition, TV Evangelism, and even Billy "squeaky-
>clean" Graham, as well as many major politicians, believe in the
>Jewish conspiracy theory. Billy Graham professed it to Richard Nixon
>on tape, and apologized for it (CLaiming to have not remembered a word
>of what he said). Pat Robertson wrote a book about it (The New World
>Order), and numerous other figured from the ranks of the Evangelical
>moement have professed the Jewish conspiracy theory. These people
>preach in front of large congregations. These congregations follow
>them and take their word for granted.
"Leadership" and "rank and file" are two different groups. The
leadship may belief in the easter bunny to ... but that doesn't
mean their 'followers' do also. The followers aren't robots.
>> In practice : Maybe. You'd have to ask each one and see if
>> they think it's bad having Jews, as opposed to
>> any other group, running things.
>
>You do not have to ask each one. You nearly need to establish enough
>survey samples and measure the proportions of each sample. I can quote-
>mine Evangelical antisemitic quotes all day, but it will never give me
>a good idea of how many total people in the movement believe the
>Jewish Conspiracy theory. Survey samples can give a better idea of the
>percentage.
>
>> >(3) If the vast majority of Creationists are Evangelical Christian
>> >Fundamentalists (and they certainly are), does it not follow that a
>> >large proportion of them will be prone to antisemitic beliefs?
>>
>> See (2) above.
>>
>> Oh, and you forgot to conclude that creationism is wrong
>> because creationists are anti-semites - just like the sky
>> isn't blue because Hitler once said it was ... :-)
>
>Nope -- I wasn't going to make that claim.
Sure you were ... I mean, what's the POINT in all this linking
creationists to anti-semites in 'talk.origins' UNLESS you planned
to use their anti-semitism as a psychological tool to undermine
confidence in their creationist beliefs ? "Since they are
anti-semites and anti-semitism is bunk - therefore any OTHER
theories they propose must also be bunk".
There are plenty of other, more honest, ways to trash creationism.
Bob Casanova
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:a67dt2l3ls533lpeb...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:21:44 -0000, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "alwaysaskingquestions"
>> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>>>Linking them in the title of a post is a pretty strong link, hence my
>>>original comment..
>> OK.
>>>I still don't think it's a valid comparison, I just don't like *all*
>>>members
>>>of any group being categorised by the behaviour of *some* members of that
>>>group. I fully accept BTW that many Creationists do just that but we
>>>shouldn't lower ourselves to their standards
>> I think if you consider what's actually under discussion
>> you'll see that this is an invalid accusation.
>Maybe, but without belabouring the issue, it was the title of the thread
>that I had a go at - "Creationists are just like Holocaust Deniers." When I
>saw that, I was disinclined to even read the post initially, I thought it
>was just going to be another emotive rant. If the title had been something
>like "Common traits among Creationists and Holocaust Deniers" it would have
>been much better IMO.
OK. I assumed you were commenting on the content rather than
the subject.
>>>>Valid arguments are
>>>> frequently painful.
>>>Yes, but I don't think you have any chance of changing people's minds by
>>>simply labelling them as members of a stupid or evil group.
>> Frankly, I don't think the minds of those who categorically
>> refuse to even examine the evidence against their chosen
>> positions *can* be changed, no matter how much sweet reason
>> is used. Of course, YMMV.
>For the majority of the Creationist followers as opposed to Creationist
>leaders, I don't think it's a case of refusing to examine the evidence, it's
>more a case of having no real interest in the subject. The vast majority of
>people IME have little real knowledge or understanding of modern science
>and ToE, they have a vague idea of Big Bang happening one time and think
>that ToE is all about us descending from monkeys.
You may be correct, but all anyone can go on are the
published statements and personal experience. Both tend to
lead me to believe that the traits I described are more
common than you suggest. Again, YMMV.
>I think the best way of winning the battle against Creationism is by trying
>to get the truth about science in its own rights across in a more popular
>way, not by trying to fight Creationism head on; the one exception, of
>course, is the battle about schooling in the US - that has to be tackled
>head on. The only disappointment I had about Dover was that the judge
>rejected ID because it's 'not science' rather than coming out and clearly
>saying 'it's a particular brand of fundamental religion in disguise'.
Unfortunately, and as you suggested above, science holds
little appeal for most people. Face it - except for a
minority, science (*real* science, as opposed to
pronouncements by Hovind et al) is boring to the majority,
who prefer sound bites and the latest iPod tunes.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by mc...@sunset.net:
>On Feb 14, 4:36 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On 14 Feb 2007 14:43:29 -0800, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "Fooj" <deanlangenf...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 14, 3:58 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> In message
>> >> <mccoy-1171487939.086404.161...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> m...@sunset.net writes>Psycho Dave may wish to label creationists holocaust deniers but the
>> >> >fact be told is that the leaders of Nazism were evolutionists.
>> >> >Consider Ernest Haeckel, the champion of evolution who started his
>> >> >monist religion. This religion influence Hitler.
>>
>> >> >JM
>>
>> >> Just like Martin Luther was a philosemite, and the South Baptist
>> >> Congress an organisation of abolitionists?
>> >> --
>> >> alias Ernest Major
>>
>> >Hitler believed an inferior theory of evolution. Get over it.
>>
>> Hitler was a self-professed Christian and Social Darwinist
>> (which has zero to do with evolution or the ToE), and who
>> also believed in Aryan supremacy. Get over what?
>
>I heard a neonazi on the radio and when he was confronted about some
>things in the Bible he said that the Bible isn't to be taken
>literally.
Bad example. If he had said that the sky is blue would that
mean it's actually any other color? The source of a
statement is irrelevant to the objective truth of the
statement.
> This is what Dana Tweedy does
Really? It's also what nearly all Bible scholars say. It's
also the only way in which the Bible can be claimed to be
"truth", since it contains quite a few instances of
statements which, if taken literally, can be shown to be
incorrect. The Bible is about morality, not science.
> when he tries to promote his
>evolution-first faith.
When one has evidence faith is not required.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Mark VandeWettering
<wett...@attbi.com>:
Could happen; neoNazis are not necessarily (or even likely)
fundies. And vice- versa. Neither should be allowed in
polite, or even impolite, society, but they aren't
equivalent.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Luminoso <lumi...@everywhere.net>:
You need to review the actual post which started this
thread, since no such linkage of beliefs was even suggested.
The only claimed link was their tactics.
> There are plenty of other, more honest, ways to trash creationism.
It's not dishonest to point out that Creationists and
anti-Semites share certain traits, since those traits
(denial of overwhelming evidence and refusal to accept
evidence which contradicts their beliefs) come fairly close
to defining both.
Augray
wrote in <1171683017.8...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com> :
[snip]
>Darwin ended his life admitting that the *geological* fossil record (=
>that which is not separated from the crust of the Earth by human
>hands) does not show species transitioning.
Cite?
>In response, Darwinists
>like Jon Barber attempt to caricature the fact of absence by asserting
>that Darwin's explanation somehow negates the fact.
The "fact of absence" is something that you've made up. As I've
pointed out to you several times before, Archaeopteryx is an excellent
example of a transitional form, and one of many.
>Every evolutionary
>authority to date admits the undisturbed fossil record does not show
>the main claim of an evolutionary theory, except if what is seen is
>interpreted antonymically (transitionality at "geologic time" = a
>Gould invent attempting to make the crust of the Earth evolution
>friendly).
This is something else that you're making up.
[snip]
Desertphile
> On Feb 14, 4:36 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > On 14 Feb 2007 14:43:29 -0800, the following appeared in
> > talk.origins, posted by "Fooj" <deanlangenf...@hotmail.com>:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >On Feb 14, 3:58 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> In message
> > >> <mccoy-1171487939.086404.161...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> > >> m...@sunset.net writes>Psycho Dave may wish to label creationists holocaust deniers but the
> > >> >fact be told is that the leaders of Nazism were evolutionists.
> > >> >Consider Ernest Haeckel, the champion of evolution who started his
> > >> >monist religion. This religion influence Hitler.
> >
> > >> >JM
> >
> > >> Just like Martin Luther was a philosemite, and the South Baptist
> > >> Congress an organisation of abolitionists?
> > >> --
> > >> alias Ernest Major
> >
> > >Hitler believed an inferior theory of evolution. Get over it.
> >
> > Hitler was a self-professed Christian and Social Darwinist
> > (which has zero to do with evolution or the ToE), and who
> > also believed in Aryan supremacy. Get over what?
> I heard a neonazi on the radio and when he was confronted about some
> things in the Bible he said that the Bible isn't to be taken
> literally. This is what Dana Tweedy does when he tries to promote his
> evolution-first faith.
Golly--- a neo-Nazi that is smarter than McCultist. That's gotta
sting.
--
"Nope! Nope! No pictures, no X-rays. I got things in there I
don't want seen. Dark thoughts and evil plans." --- Kolchak
Fooj
I think it's possible neonazis don't view the bible literaly, so they
can have more converts.